Re: [Tsv-art] [v6ops] [Last-Call] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops-05

Fernando Gont <> Wed, 07 April 2021 23:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACDBE3A2EF6; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 16:49:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HwwCdxs-h6kz; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 16:49:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B263E3A2EF5; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 16:49:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B057C280210; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 23:49:22 +0000 (UTC)
To: Nick Hilliard <>, "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <>
Cc: Tom Herbert <>, Gorry Fairhurst <>, "" <>, IPv6 Operations <>, "" <>, "" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 20:49:19 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] [v6ops] [Last-Call] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops-05
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2021 23:49:45 -0000


On 7/4/21 11:58, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote on 07/04/2021 15:22:
>> I guess that the authors could consider adding a sentence that it
>> also doesn't provide any recommendation on how end hosts make use of
>> extension headers, but that might be a bit incongruous in the sense
>> that the document doesn't appear to talk about end host behaviour at
>> all ...
> well, this is kinda the concern that we as authors have.  The document 
> is completely clear that it's descriptive, and not prescriptive, and 
> there is an entire disclaimer section which points this out.  We get 
> Tom's interest in having a document that tells forwarding stack software 
> authors what to aim towards, but this isn't that document and we've got 
> well-defined reasons for not wanting to move in that direction.
> If Tom or others find that the idea of a descriptive-only document 
> doesn't match what they would want, well ok, I guess that's 
> understandable from the point of view of a software author - but 
> consensus isn't unanimity either.  As you suggest, adding an extra 
> sentence as a further disclaimer seems incongruous and I'm not sure that 
> it would turn the document into a better version of itself.

Tom seems to be willing to have a document that proposes a path forward 
to improve usage of EHs. As noted in the very disclaimer, this is not 
that document. That's subject to a different document that interested 
parties should submit.

So, in my opinon, this document is ready tp ship to the IESG.


Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492